Connect with us

Texas

All-time results of the Lone Star Showdown, the Texas-Texas A&M football rivalry

Published

on

All-time results of the Lone Star Showdown, the Texas-Texas A&M football rivalry


The Texas Longhorns and Texas A&M Aggies decided to bring things back in style.

With Texas joining the SEC in the 2024 season, that meant the Aggies and Longhorns would face off for the first time since 2011. After Texas A&M joined the SEC in 2012, the two schools did not continue their rivalry in nonconference play.

There doesn’t need to be anything extra on the line for this game to be of the utmost importance to both schools, but the renewal of the Lone Star Showdown is coming with some extra juice. With Georgia’s ticket to the 2024 SEC Championship game punched, the winner of the 2024 Lone Star Showdown will face Georgia in Atlanta for the conference title.

Ahead of the highly anticipated return of the Longhorns to Kyle Field to visit their hated rival, check out the all-time results of the Lone Star Showdown, dating all the way back to 1894.

Advertisement

Texas College Sports

Get the latest college sports news, scores and analysis.

All-time series results

Texas leads 76-37-5

Date Location Score
Oct. 19, 1894 Austin Texas 38, Texas A&M 0
Oct. 22, 1898 Austin Texas 48, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 4, 1899 San Antonio Texas 6, Texas A&M 0
Oct. 27, 1900 San Antonio Texas 5, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 29, 1900 Austin Texas 11, Texas A&M 0
Oct. 26, 1901 San Antonio Texas 17, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 28, 1901 Austin Texas 32, Texas A&M 0
Oct. 25, 1902 San Antonio Texas 0, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 27, 1902 Austin Texas A&M 12, Texas 0
Nov. 29, 1903 Austin Texas 29, Texas A&M 6
Nov. 24, 1904 Austin Texas 34, Texas A&M 6
Nov. 22, 1905 Austin Texas 27, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 29, 1906 Austin Texas 24, Texas A&M 0
Oct. 12, 1907 Dallas Texas 0, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 28, 1907 Austin Texas 11, Texas A&M 6
Nov. 9, 1908 Houston Texas 24, Texas A&M 8
Nov. 29, 1908 Austin Texas 28, Texas A&M 12
Nov. 8, 1909 Houston Texas A&M 23, Texas 0
Nov. 25, 1909 Austin Texas A&M 5, Texas 0
Nov. 14, 1910 Houston Texas A&M 14, Texas 8
Nov. 13, 1911 Houston Texas 6, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 19, 1915 College Station Texas A&M 13, Texas 0
Nov. 30, 1916 Austin Texas 21, Texas A&M 7
Nov. 20, 1917 College Station Texas A&M 7, Texas 0
Nov. 28, 1918 Austin Texas 7, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 27, 1919 College Station Texas A&M 7, Texas 0
Nov. 25, 1920 Austin Texas 7, Texas A&M 3
Nov. 24, 1921 College Station Texas 0, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 30, 1922 Austin Texas A&M 14, Texas 7
Nov. 29, 1923 College Station Texas 6, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 27, 1924 Austin Texas 7, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 26, 1925 College Station Texas A&M 28, Texas 0
Nov. 25, 1926 Austin Texas 14, Texas A&M 5
Nov. 24, 1927 College Station Texas A&M 28, Texas 7
Nov. 29, 1928 Austin Texas 19, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 28, 1929 College Station Texas A&M 13, Texas 0
Nov. 27, 1930 Austin Texas 26, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 26, 1931 College Station Texas A&M 7, Texas 6
Nov. 24, 1932 Austin Texas 21, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 30, 1933 College Station Texas 10, Texas A&M 10
Nov. 29, 1934 Austin Texas 13, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 28, 1935 College Station Texas A&M 20, Texas 6
Nov. 26, 1936 Austin Texas 7, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 25, 1937 College Station Texas A&M 7, Texas 0
Nov. 24, 1938 Austin Texas 7, Texas A&M 6
Nov. 30, 1939 College Station Texas A&M 20, Texas 0
Nov. 28, 1940 Austin Texas 7, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 27, 1941 College Station Texas 23, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 26, 1942 Austin Texas 12, Texas A&M 6
Nov. 25, 1943 College Station Texas 27, Texas A&M 13
Nov. 30, 1944 Austin Texas 6, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 29, 1945 College Station Texas 20, Texas A&M 10
Nov. 28, 1946 Austin Texas 24, Texas A&M 7
Nov. 27, 1947 College Station Texas 32, Texas A&M 13
Nov. 25, 1948 Austin Texas 14, Texas A&M 14
Nov. 24, 1949 College Station Texas 42, Texas A&M 14
Nov. 30, 1950 Austin Texas 17, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 29, 1951 College Station Texas A&M 22, Texas 21
Nov. 27, 1952 Austin Texas 32, Texas A&M 12
Nov. 26, 1953 College Station Texas 21, Texas A&M 12
Nov. 29, 1954 Austin Texas 22, Texas A&M 13
Nov. 24, 1955 College Station Texas 21, Texas A&M 6
Nov. 29, 1956 Austin Texas A&M 32, Texas 21
Nov. 28, 1957 College Station Texas 9, Texas A&M 7
Nov. 27, 1958 Austin Texas 27, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 26, 1959 College Station Texas 20, Texas A&M 17
Nov. 24, 1960 Austin Texas 21, Texas A&M 14
Nov. 23, 1961 College Station Texas 25, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 22, 1962 Austin Texas 13, Texas A&M 0
Nov. 28, 1963 College Station Texas 15, Texas A&M 13
Nov. 26, 1964 Austin Texas 26, Texas A&M 7
Nov. 25, 1965 College Station Texas 21, Texas A&M 17
Nov. 24, 1966 Austin Texas 22, Texas A&M 14
Nov. 23, 1967 College Station Texas A&M 10, Texas 7
Nov. 28, 1968 Austin Texas 35, Texas A&M 14
Nov. 27, 1969 College Station Texas 49, Texas A&M 12
Nov. 26, 1970 Austin Texas 52, Texas A&M 14
Nov. 25, 1971 College Station Texas 34, Texas A&M 14
Nov. 23, 1972 Austin Texas 38, Texas A&M 3
Nov. 22, 1973 College Station Texas 42, Texas A&M 13
Nov. 29, 1974 Austin Texas 32, Texas A&M 3
Nov. 28, 1975 College Station Texas A&M 20, Texas 10
Nov. 25, 1976 Austin Texas A&M 27, Texas 3
Nov. 26, 1977 College Station Texas 57, Texas A&M 28
Dec. 2, 1978 Austin Texas 22, Texas A&M 7
Dec. 1, 1979 College Station Texas A&M 13, Texas 7
Nov. 29, 1980 Austin Texas A&M 24, Texas 14
Nov. 26, 1981 College Station Texas 21, Texas A&M 13
Nov. 25, 1982 Austin Texas 53, Texas A&M 16
Nov. 26, 1983 College Station Texas 45, Texas A&M 13
Dec. 1, 1984 Austin Texas A&M 37, Texas 12
Nov. 28, 1985 College Station Texas A&M 42, Texas 10
Nov. 27, 1986 Austin Texas A&M 16, Texas 3
Nov. 26, 1987 College Station Texas A&M 20, Texas 13
Nov. 24, 1988 Austin Texas A&M 28, Texas 24
Dec. 2, 1989 College Station Texas A&M 21, Texas 10
Dec. 1, 1990 Austin Texas 28, Texas A&M 27
Nov. 28, 1991 College Station Texas A&M 31, Texas 14
Nov. 26, 1992 Austin Texas A&M 34, Texas 13
Nov. 25, 1993 College Station Texas A&M 18, Texas 9
Nov. 5, 1994 Austin Texas A&M 34, Texas 10
Dec. 2, 1995 College Station Texas 16, Texas A&M 6
Nov. 29, 1996 Austin Texas 51, Texas A&M 15
Nov. 28, 1997 College Station Texas A&M 27, Texas 16
Nov. 27, 1998 Austin Texas 26, Texas A&M 24
Nov. 26, 1999 College Station Texas A&M 20, Texas 16
Nov. 24, 2000 Austin Texas 43, Texas A&M 17
Nov. 23, 2001 College Station Texas 21, Texas A&M 7
Nov. 29, 2002 Austin Texas 50, Texas A&M 20
Nov. 28, 2003 College Station Texas 46, Texas A&M 15
Nov. 26, 2004 Austin Texas 26, Texas A&M 13
Nov. 25, 2005 College Station Texas 40, Texas A&M 29
Nov. 24, 2006 Austin Texas A&M 12, Texas 7
Nov. 23, 2007 College Station Texas A&M 38, Texas 30
Nov. 27, 2008 Austin Texas 49, Texas A&M 9
Nov. 26, 2009 College Station Texas 49, Texas A&M 39
Nov. 25, 2010 Austin Texas A&M 24, Texas 17
Nov. 24, 2011 College Station Texas 27, Texas A&M 25
    Everything to know about Texas-Texas A&M: A trip to the SEC championship game on the line
    Atin Wright’s late 3-pointer gives North Texas win over Oregon State

Find more college sports coverage from The Dallas Morning News here.

Find more Texas coverage from The Dallas Morning News here.

Find more Texas A&M coverage from The Dallas Morning News here.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Texas

Questions surround QB Quinn Ewers as Texas faces must-win game against A&M

Published

on

Questions surround QB Quinn Ewers as Texas faces must-win game against A&M


AUSTIN, Texas (KTRK) — The Texas Longhorns clinched a 10-win season over the weekend, thanks to the win over Kentucky.

There’s a constant conversation about QB-1 and whether he has what it takes to lead the Longhorns to a National Championship.

The Houston Chronicle’s Kirk Bohls joined Eyewitness News to analyze Quinn Ewers’ performance under center and preview the Lonestar Showdown.

Bohls said despite an ankle injury Ewers received in the game against Kentucky, he expects Ewers will be healthy enough to start for the Longhorns against Texas A&M on Saturday.

Advertisement

Despite a shaky performance against Vanderbilt and the loss to Georgia, Bohls argued that Ewers doesn’t get the respect his talent deserves. He has led the Longhorns to back-to-back 10-win seasons and a playoff appearance last season. This season, he’s thrown for over 2,000 yards with 23 touchdowns and six interceptions. Bohls said he’s among the top five quarterbacks the Longhorns have had.

Texas sits at the top in The Houston Chronicle’s SEC Power Rankings, but the upcoming Lonestar Showdown is a must-win.

The SEC Championship is on the line for the Longhorns and the Aggies.

Bohls said it will come down to whether Texas’ offensive weapons can break through a tough Aggie defensive line. He also predicted that Arch Manning could get playing time if Ewers isn’t at the top of his game.

You can watch the Lonestar Showdown on ABC13 on Saturday night. Kickoff is set for 6:30 p.m.

Advertisement

For updates on this story, follow Briana Conner on Facebook, X and Instagram.

Copyright © 2024 KTRK-TV. All Rights Reserved.





Source link

Continue Reading

Texas

Texas vs. Texas A&M football picks: What the oddsmakers say

Published

on

Texas vs. Texas A&M football picks: What the oddsmakers say


A classic college football rivalry returns after more than a decade and with plenty on the line as Texas visits Texas A&M on Saturday night. Here’s what the oddsmakers are predicting for the game.

Texas improved to 6-1 in SEC play and stayed atop the conference standings after knocking off Kentucky, and needs to win this game in order to earn a place against Georgia in the SEC title bout.

Likewise for the Aggies, but they’re coming off a four-overtime loss against Auburn that dropped the team to 8-3 overall and 5-2 in conference games.

What do the wiseguys expect as the Longhorns and Aggies meet this weekend?

Advertisement

Let’s check in with the early predictions for Texas vs. Texas A&M in this Week 14 college football game, according to the oddsmakers.

Texas is a 6 point favorite against Texas A&M, according to the updated lines posted to FanDuel Sportsbook.

The book set the total at 48.5 points for the game.

And it lists the moneyline odds for Texas at -230 and for Texas A&M at +195 to win outright.

Texas: -6 (-110)
Texas A&M +6 (-110)

Advertisement

Over 48.5 points: -110
Under 48.5 points: -110

Texas is 6-5 against the spread (54.6%) overall this season …

Texas A&M is 3-8 (27.3%) ATS in ‘24 …

Texas is 2-2 against the spread in road games …

Texas A&M is 2-5 ATS at home …

Advertisement

Texas is 1-4 against the spread in its last 5 games …

A&M is 2-6 ATS in its last 8 home games …

Texas is 4-1 against the spread in its last 5 games played in Week 14 …

The total went over in 5 of Texas A&M’s last 6 games …

The total went under in 6 of Texas’ last 7 games and 7 of its last 9 road games …

Advertisement

A&M is 3-10 ATS in its last 13 games on a Saturday …

A plurality of bettors expect the Longhorns will take care of the Aggies on the road, according to the spread consensus picks for the game.

Texas is getting 63 percent of bets to win the game and cover the narrow point spread.

The other 37 percent of wagers project Texas A&M will either win outright in an upset or keep the game under a touchdown margin in a loss.

The game’s implied score suggests a narrow victory for the Longhorns over the Aggies.

Advertisement

When taking the point spread and total into consideration, it’s implied that Texas will defeat Texas A&M by a projected score of 28 to 22.

Our early pick: Texas A&M +6 … Strange things can happen at Kyle Field under the lights, especially as this intense rivalry game is resurrected, and with so much on the line, so asking for a greater than touchdown margin might be too much, and this is a game the Aggies can outright win.

When: Sat., Nov. 30
Where: College Station, Tex.

Time: 6:30 p.m. Central
TV: ABC network

Advertisement

Game odds refresh periodically and are subject to change.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem and wants help, please call 1-800-GAMBLER.

More college football from SI: Top 25 Rankings | Schedule | Teams

Follow College Football HQ: Bookmark | Rankings | Picks

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Texas

Should States Like Texas Be Allowed to Grade Their Own Highway Homework? — Streetsblog USA

Published

on

Should States Like Texas Be Allowed to Grade Their Own Highway Homework? — Streetsblog USA


In late October, protestors in Houston watched as officials wheeled a trough out into the middle of St. Emanuel Street and each scooped out a ceremonial shovelful of sand.

The officials were ostensibly there for a symbolic groundbreaking for the North Houston Highway Improvement Project, which will widen or rebuild around 25 miles of Interstate 45 in the heart of Texas’s largest city. For the protesters, though, the bulldozers that loomed in the background of that photo-op were a very real threat of the harm soon to come to St. Emanuel Street, and the estimated 1,079 homes, 344 businesses, five places of worship and two schools that will be razed to make way for the highway.

“Half of that street is going to be gone,” added Erin Eriksen, an organizer with Stop TxDOT I-45. “Half of those businesses are going to be torn down. And TxDOT was basically thumbing its nose at these places that were going to be destroyed because of this project.”

According to official analyses, though, the destruction of St. Emanuel Street and so many like it isn’t enough of an “environmental impact” to justify canceling the I-45 project, even though it will dramatically exacerbate pollution, flooding, and inequality in the disproportionately low income communities of color through which the expansion will largely run.

Advertisement

And that’s probably because the Texas Department of Transportation wrote those official analyses itself.

‘A fox guarding a hen house”

Thanks to a little-known loophole in federal law known as the “NEPA assignment” program, DOTs from Texas and six other states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Ohio, and Utah — are temporarily “assigned” the responsibility of conducting what are normally federally overseen environmental assessments (the states must reapply every five years when their authority expires. Texas’s authority expires this year, and members of the Texas Streets Coalition are urging advocates to comment on whether it should be rescinded before Dec. 9.)

In theory, NEPA assignment is supposed to help responsible state DOTs build projects quickly, without having to wait on a single understaffed federal agency to work through a backlog of proposals from across the country before giving the green light on simple repaving or repair. Some argue that it also gives environmentally progressive states an opportunity to conduct an even more thorough analysis than the feds would do on their own.

In car-dominated Texas, though, NEPA assignment is essentially a “fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation” — and its consequences shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, argues Heyden Black Walker of Reconnect Austin.

In Walker’s native Austin, for instance, advocates say that Texas DOT misleadingly “segmented” the expansion of a single intestate known as I-35 into three smaller projects along the exactly same road, hiding the staggering impacts the expansion would have for the region on the whole — and, advocates say, violating federal law. Walker says the “9,000 pages” of official documents about the project also didn’t adequately consider the highway’s impacts on air pollution, and failed to study whether railway investments could address the same problems the expansion was meant to solve.

Advertisement

That the I-35 expansion received even that degree of scrutiny, though, is something of an outlier.

Texas activists found that between 2015 and 2022, only six TxDOT projects receive a full-blown “environmental impact statement,” an exhaustive process that details exactly how the agency will mitigate the harm it will cause. A staggering 130 projects, by comparison, only received a far-simpler “environmental assessment,” all of which resulted in a “finding of no significant impact,” or FONSI, which is pronounced like the shark-jumping character on “Happy Days.”

Cumulatively, though, those “insignificant” projects displaced a stunning total of 477 homes and 376 businesses, and consumed $24 billion. And advocates say that lack of oversight is particularly damning for a state that would rank eighth in the world for carbon dioxide emissions if it were a country, and that polluted nearly twice as much as second-ranked California in 2019.

“The things that NEPA was intended to protect us from — from inordinate displacement, from worse air quality — Texas is failing on all of those metrics,” said Peter Eccles, director of policy and planning at LINK Houston, a transportation advocacy group. “Since TxDOT entered NEPA assignment in 2014, displacements have skyrocketed across Texas, dwarfing the national average in terms of how many households are displaced for freeway projects, as well as the number of counties that are no longer in attainment for criteria pollutants. … It’s not working as intended.”

Highway-related displacements have skyrocketed in Texas compared to the national average since the state was issued a memorandum of understanding (MOU) granting it authority to conduct its now environmental assessments. Graphic: Texas Transportation Coalition.

If the federal government was conducting the NEPA process, advocates argue that Texas might face stricter parameters for what constitutes a “significant” impact of a highway project, rather than letting the state write off families losing their homes and residents getting sick as unfortunate but necessary evils. And maybe, bad projects might even be stopped before they start.

Advertisement

“TxDOT is setting up its own environmental reviews, setting its own parameters, and then self-grading its own performance by the parameters that it sets,” said Bobby Levinski, an attorney with the Save Our Springs Alliance. “And we don’t have that federal oversight that used to exist where, if you did have a disagreement over what the current state of the science is, [you might have] a technical expert at the federal level who could say, ‘No, you didn’t quite do a good enough job looking at, say, this air quality aspect.’

“That check no longer exists,” he continued. “And at the end of the day, they’re going to give themselves an ‘A.’”

NEPA Assignment Under Trump

Levinski and the rest of the coalition acknowledge that some might be wary of handing environmental power back to the federal government — especially with Trump returning to the White House.

Project 2025, which many believe will serve as the incoming president’s playbook, promises to restore regulations limiting environmental review that Trump put in place the last time he was in office, as well as “frame the new regulations to limit the scope for judicial review of agency NEPA analysis and judicial remedies.”

Advocates in Texas, though, say they’re already living in a world where NEPA has been badly watered down — and because of their state’s special authority, Washington was powerless to intervene. Restoring federal oversight, they argue, is a critical first step to making things right, followed by voting in a presidential administration that takes NEPA seriously.

Advertisement

“Here in Texas, we’ve been facing basically a mini-Trump administration, anyway, with our governor,” said Katy Atkiss, facilitator for the Texas Streets Coalition, referring to Gov. Greg Abbott. “He appoints the Texas Transportation Commission, which is basically five old white men — none with transportation experience. So I feel like we’ve been working in a similar environment anyway. We’ve had several conversations with DOT and other federal representatives throughout the course of of the year, and while they are extremely sympathetic, basically, they said, ‘We believe you, but there’s nothing we can do.’”

Until Texas’s NEPA assignment is revoked, all advocates can do is sue to stop bad projects — though with the president picking many of the judges, that’s an increasingly bleak prospect, too.

“With Trump being in office, the courts aren’t getting easier either,” added Levinski. “[And] making the public be the enforcer of NEPA, I think, puts a big onus on the residents of Texas to go up against the giant Goliath that is TxDOT on every single case. … We need some sort of measure of oversight. You can’t just write off the entire state of Texas.”

The members of the Texas Streets coalition acknowledge that getting their state’s NEPA assignment revoked won’t be easy — and if it can’t be done, they hope USDOT will at least make some common-sense changes.

The state might still be allowed do its own environmental assessments, but not on massive highway projects that displace hundreds of residents. The feds also might force the DOT to wait at least 30 days to collect public comment after they make changes to their plans, or submit to “an annual NEPA compliance audit” to ensure they’re not flouting federal laws. At a minimum, they could acknowledge that granting states like Texas the ability to do their own environmental review even as they’re suing to hide their greenhouse gas emissions from the public seems like a pretty obvious flaw in the system.

Advertisement

At the end of the day, though, advocates say we need to address the shortcomings of NEPA itself, which still doesn’t factor in the power of induced demand — and still offers all states too many opportunities to build destructive highways, even when the federal government is grading their projects.

“I think that NEPA assignment and its abuses by TxDOT are a symptom of the larger failings of NEPA as a whole,” added Eccles. “NEPA was very well intentioned at the time [it was written], but certain states like TxDOT have gotten very good at gaming it to rubber stamp projects that they want to do regardless. Contrast that with the NEPA burden that the Federal Transit Administration puts on transit projects; it’s much more rigorous, and it ends up slowing down those projects significantly. We need to have a clearer picture of what projects benefit the environment and which projects harm it.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending